Steven Carr

I see.

So there is a scale.

'Human'

'Fully human'

'More fully human'

Toto

My first reaction to "more fully human" was that it referred to maturity or socialization. I don't think it has to have racist implications. If you google "fully human" many of the hits are to discussions of Jesus as fully human and fully divine, or references to societies that considered slaves or women as less than fully human; but some are to psychology.

But I can't find where anyone actually discusses the term in any academic setting. There seems to be an assumption that philosophy or socialization will make one more aware and more fully human.

For example, this is just incoherent. The paper quoted in the OP does not appear to relate any specific part of the Bible to becoming more fully human, or involve any scholarly discussion of what that means. The author seems to merely assert that Christians realize their interdependence and this is more fully human that modern anomic individualism.

I think that this idea is totally misguided, that most Christians think that the Lord blesses them in this lifetime, so are less able to deal with suffering because they think they might have done something to deserve this.

spin

Sorry, I don't drudge through others' recommendations for entertainment.

"[J]ust" animals? If you look at the Iraq War, you'd know we were pretty unjust animals.

Oh, I think you are trying to express some misconceptions about people who don't hold your beliefs.

What's "mere" about being an animal?

As we are animals we can't be set apart from animals. It is linguistic nonsense.

We belong to the hominid species.

That is as meaningful as "what's the difference between cars and vehicles?"

Try using "other animals" above instead of simply "animals" and you won't make a category error.

Somewhere in here I think you are trying to say that you don't really mean "more fully human" but "more humane/intelligent"?

I'll forgive you for that despite the fact that it has nothing to do with scholarly study of biblical literature. Do you understand the notion of "horses for courses"? Would you want to start a discussion about naive art at a Star Trek convention? or logical positivism at an oral hygiene class?

I'm sorry, but to me almost none of this reflects the discussion.

Here we are on a forum dedicated to the study of history and bible literature, discussing the in/appropriateness of a paper about being "more fully human" at a scholarly biblical literature convention. You're off trying to discuss quasi-moral issues that have no place here. This is not me saying that you shouldn't discuss these issues, but here, especially in this thread, is not the place.

I understand.

If you say so.


spin

Susan2

Tst, tst spin. You are actually trying to provoke me into being less human. Having said that we both know that I am not necessarily against saying **** ***, however, Aristole is absolutely correct when he said that the brain cools the blood. So, I'll take his advice and pass on the **** ***., being the good little girl that I am.

And, having said, that I think I'll take my dumb little *** and mosey on over to JW's thread. He, at least if often funny, and I think his scholarly accumulation is not just much more broader then yours, but more interesting, inclusive. Well, that is except for Harvey Dubich. Oops, that was you, sorry.

spin

I may be trying to provoke you, but only to think a little more usefully. You may disagree with me and I may be wrong, but all that you've said so far is not relevant to this thread.

And what do you mean by being "less human"?

Asterisks don't hide the sham value of this last comment.

You have the thoughts, you indicate you've had them, you give an approximation as to what they were and you then try to claim to be a good little girl. But we both know the reality.

:wave:


spin

DrJim

Regardless of whether "more fully human" refers to a maturity or socialization, it is still a damn stupid way of putting it in an academic conference. It presupposes that there is some objective standard for humanity, maturity or socialization, that other religions or philosophies do not quite meet.

The conference abstract does not speak of recognizing the humanity of those who suffer from dehumanizing efforts of racists, misogynists etc. It speaks of suffering felt by many in the "modern western world" and the apparent inability to fully handle it without christian belief which is construed as "more fully human".

The paper does not seem interested in critically analyzing Christian perceptions on humanity nor does it promise to offer any kind of quantitive examination of how people with different beliefs endure suffering (will the Christians do better?). Rather is it simply a smug CLAIM that Christianity is superior. Do non-Chrisitans not have communities to support them, family, friends, when things are bleak or they are facing the inevitable. Of course they do.

The paper in question does not seem to be an academic discussion of the success of various religious or philosophical beliefs and communities in the handling of the fear of death.

Regardless of the employment of philosophical terms that might mean something else in other contexts, the paper is knocking down a grief stricken strawman with a jingoist apologetic self-righteousness. It is not an academic paper at all.

I will freely concede that no scholarship is fully objective but in the very least, we try to be aware of our biases. Of course, I think the Christian ritual system is far more respectful of people's humanity than (let's take an easy example) the human sacrifice cults of Meso-America. If such a religion arose again anywhere in the world, I would certainly speak out against it, and if Christian missionaries converted them and made them stop these murders I would not complain.

The language of "fully human" can only operate within a very closed kind of frame of reference. I would have thought that an academic society should guard itself

Hell, many academic journals now forbid the use of gender specific pronouns when not necessary, of capitalizing pronouns referring to divinity, of ethnocentrism, and so forth. Language that quantifies humanity should be treated in exactly the same way.

Toto

It has been pointed out that when Spanish missionaries found the Meso-Americans performing ritual human sacrifice, at least the Meso-Americans killed their victims quickly. The Christians back in Spain were torturing Jews and heretics and killing them slowly and painfully by burning them at the stake.

Modern Christian attempts to claim to be "humanist" are ahistorical and insulting to our intelligence.

Susan2

That may be true of some Christians, even many in certian periods of history, and justifiably understanding. But is it eqaully insulting to claim Christianity is without a history of "humanism"?

Is Christianity to be a perpetual one size fits all religion, as it is currently forced upon it followers, internally and externally, or a religion of true genuine personal salvation? Will the Jesus story always overshadow the individual stories of Christians? Can they have no other story but his?

The Hiding Place (or via: amazon.co.uk), Corrie Ten Boom, (WWII). There were many such as herself.

Three Cups of Tea. An American Christian man builds schools for Muslim children. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

avi

Holy cow.
So much nonsense. so quickly accumulated.


Absolutely correct. 97% of the human genome is shared with Chimpanzees.


Nonsense.
There are 7 hominid genera. We all belong to the Homo genus. Some of us qualify for the sapiens species!!

Ok, yes, we all do!!! sorry, just trying to lighten this grim thread....

Agree.

I agree with the thrust of DrJim. Here's some other truly human, or "fully" human endeavors to reflect upon. At least SOME of these activities were done within the general framework of the Judeo Christian Muslim tradition, i.e. kill the nonbelievers.

alpha: NanJing
a. Hiroshima
b. Nagasaki
c. Chemical Weapons used against Kurds by Sadistic Hussein
d. Massacre of the Rwandan Tutsi by the Hutu
e. Massacre of the Srebrenica Bosnians
f. Buchenwald
g. Dachau, and so many others we don't even know how many there were;
h. slaughter of the indigenous inhabitants of North America by the black coats and other fellow Christians....

These and so many other countless stupidities, barbaric assaults, represent maximum human energy. No other species on this planet engages in such homicidal mania....Religion, all of them, encourages this homicide.

Sure. Absolutely. 100% correct.

Susan2

Bump.

I am, I said, by Neil Diamond

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfbOHebiBgw